YOUR CART

The words that we use in our descriptions have a tendency to shape our reality. The explanatory language that we embrace over time in our society or specific groups occasionally becomes morphed to have different meanings. Remarkably, the original meanings of many words were incredibly different in the past– or completely the opposite of current definitions. For instance, the word “bravery” has completely changed its meaning over time- it was originally used to signify cowardice, and in fact, its old meaning continues its utilization today in the word ‘bravado’.This acceptance of changing speech and verbiage is a window into ourselves as a society. The words we choose to define other human beings or groups shapes our reality, our beliefs, motivations, and emotional responses to others. A common understanding of terms is important when we communicate with one another; so when choosing descriptive expressions, it is important to be as accurate as possible in order to avoid false categorization.

The word “terrorism” incites strong emotional reactions in many people in our country post 9/11. The word invokes images of mass death,senseless killings, religious fanaticism and hatred. In 2002, an undergroundenvironmental activism group calling themselves the Earth Liberation Front (orELF) set fire to a number of SUV dealerships in California, touting theirnegative impact on the environment and causing an estimated one million dollarsin damages. Both the FBI and angry SUV owners at the time demanded that thearsons be classified as acts of “domestic terrorism.” I agree that theiractions were extreme and did not help their cause and the cause of other environmentalists, but the phrase “domestic terrorism” pushes the boundaries ofacceptable description.

Since definitions vary so much, there is no one fittingclassification for the term “terrorist” that groups or people can be put into.Random House, Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica all provide varyingdefinitions of the word. The words encompassing “terrorism” are different forevery attempt to define it: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate,dominate, or coerce for political purposes,” the “state of fear and submissionproduced by terrorism or terrorization,” or “a terroristic method of governingor of resisting a government” are all varying examples. Different details areused to outline what terrorism consists of; bombing, kidnapping, arson, suicidebombers. Some may be used in one source, none in others, each differingsignificantly.

There is one universal factor, though, in all the sources ofdefinition for terrorism: anti-government sentiment plays a strong role in eachone. Examples of this resistance against authorities defined as terrorism areeverywhere; Timothy McVeigh was retaliating against perceived government actsof war against the people (Waco), Middle Eastern suicide bombers are trying toend occupation of their homeland, the Hutu’s wanted the Tutsi’s out of power inRwanda. Along these lines, this definition would also include ELF’s actions asterrorism, in their retaliation against the perceived government injustice ofallowing pollutants like SUV’s unhindered use without adherence to federal fuelefficiency standards.Yet ultimately, the word “terrorism” is not a fitting description of the ELF arsons. By definition alone, one cannot conclusively lump the SUV arsons into the vastly mutating “terrorism” category without falsely categorizing them by at least one source. Those who set the fires should be described with words or phrases with less sadistic connotations that properly depicts their intentions, such as “criminal protesters” or “destructive activists,” which I will use in description of ELF’s actions.

Both terrorists and the destructive ELF activists try to send a specific message, but only one group is willing to take lives to get the point across. This distinction must be focused on to avoid improper judgment: any loss of life changes the definition in this case from “criminal protests” to “acts of terrorism.” Angry SUV owners who were victimized by these arsons at the time tended toward the extreme opinion that these criminal protesters should be defined as domestic terrorists, using a powerful label to assuage their passionate feelings. This is an easy categorization for those with these powerful emotions, but the use of a term that classifies murderers, kidnappers and suicide bombers to define these rebellious environmentalists smacks of extremism, playing on the common fear by using a label that is very serious- very powerful.

It is easy to spread this definition of domestic terrorism to all walks of life and any situations that one finds disturbing or inappropriate. We could even use many religions as an example; willing to take the lives of untold numbers of people over the centuries in the name of their deity, they can easily fall into the category of “terrorist” in this light. The definition of terrorism is too ambiguous and varying, not specifying the importance of killing and bodily harm as a defining aspect of the term. If one is willing to accept loss of life as a means to an end, this type of person would more aptly be described as a terrorist than one who focuses on property damage as a way to express a similar message of desire for governmental change. In 2010, Nihad Awad, National Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defined terrorism as committed by any person towards other living human beings: “Whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political statement: that is an act of terror.”

The difference between the ELF and the example of suicide bombers (a more common example of a “terrorist”) is the acceptance of loss of life. The SUV arsonists had no objective of harming or injuring any people; only property damage was the intended effect. Extreme acts are common in response to governmental action or inaction- all these groups had the intent to incite change, but some are willing to kill in order to achieve those ends.

The question is of intent: is arson a violent crime when the only victims, intended or unintended, are inanimate? Is the intention to inflict property damage and loss of money the same as the acceptance of the possibility of taking human life? Wikipedia defines “violent crime” as “a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim- this entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery.” This also encompasses the examples of rape, aggravated assault, or simple assault, all of which do physical harm to another.

There was indeed a possibility of harm in the SUV fires- the fires could have spread to surrounding residential areas, explosions could have affected nearby traffic patterns, etc. But to use these odds of potential hazard as a measure of proper action, we would have to extend them to other areas of life: there is also a possibility of harm when hunting or setting off fireworks. If the fires had spread to surrounding areas, this could be seen as intent to harm, or just as easily become chalked up to stupidity. Weighing this against sanctions for killing and accepting a possible loss of life creates a clear distinction between these criminal protesters and suicide bombers. The destruction of other people’s property is by no means a mature or diplomatic approach to the problem these environmentalists faced, and if anything their actions were extremist and succeeded in immobilizing their own cause, but ELF’s actions were committed with the intent to destroy property, not lives.

Anger at those involved in the ELF fires by those victimized was the primary catalyst in the use of the term “domestic terrorism.” Their powerful emotions inspired the use of a phrase that generates fury and resentment common in society, so that others could share in their aggravation and put a stop to the property damage. SUV owner George Allen, at the time of the arsons, said, “I would treat them as terrorists, because we should not let them keep doing it!” If the purpose of using the word is primarily to keep property damage from occurring further, it is clear that the original usage of the word has been allowed to modify drastically. In that case, however, the severe connotations of the word should no longer apply, unless we are fine with falsely judging people and allowing rampant animosity among those who refuse to think for themselves free run toward any group we choose to dislike.

The motives and messages of each situation can be weighed and debated endlessly, but in the end it is the willingness to take human life, the agreement that it takes the cracking of a few eggs to make an omelet, that truly defines terrorism. It is inappropriate to lump any who are unwilling to injure or kill into the definitive grouping of “terrorist.”

It takes a fresh look at the jargon and semantics we use to define our world; a questioning of the language we use and accept as normal and commonplace to peel back the layers of judgment of others that we regularly consent to. If the word “bravery” can start out with such a negative meaning, it is interesting to consider the life cycle of some of the more controversial words in our language. If 9/11 never happened, would we still be considering using the word “terrorism” so commonly? Using such emotionally charged, persuasive words like this in description of milder and milder actions could very well lead to the mutation of the word’s definition, and perhaps “terrorism” will follow the evolutionary path of the word “bravery.” Unfortunately, to get to that point, many people must be falsely labeled, ultimately causing pain and unnecessary condemnation because those who judged did not stop to weigh the consequences of their passionate rulings